1 2026:CGHC:12516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6978 of 2024 1 - Krishna Kumar Verma S/o Shri Budharu Ram Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Mudhipar, District Khairagarh - Chhuhikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Districr Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Registrar Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh, Block -3, Second And Third Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Durg Division, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Prescrided Authoriry / Prescribed Officer Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Mudhipar, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Central Bank, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No. No. 1, 2, 3 & 5/State : Mr. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Priyanka Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate 2 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 16/03 /2026 1. There is no representation on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. Earlier, notice was issued to the Respondents No. 4 & 6. When no one appeared on the date of hearing for the Respondent No. 4, on a prayer made by the counsel for petitioner Dasti Notice was also permitted to be served upon the Respondent No. 4. Petitioner submitted report of the Dasti service mentioning that it was served upon the Respondent No. 4 Sahakari Sewa Samati Maryadit, Mudhipar. Dasti report is filed along with the covering memo, however, today also, there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of petitioner is covered with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Lalaram Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in WP (S) No. 347/2025, Santosh Kumjam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in WP (S) No. 7070/2024 and Deendayal Pal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in WP (S) No. 6923/2024. He contended that the order dated 23.01.2025 passed in the case of Lalaram (Supra) is challenged in Writ Appeal No. 162/2025 which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2025 observing that there is non-compliance of Rule 17 of the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Employees Service Rules, 2018 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Rules, 2018) and in this case also, very specific ground has been raised by the petitioner that before suspending the petitioner, the relevant rule has not been followed which requires prior approval of the Divisional Joint Registrar and therefore, this petition be heard in absence of the Respondent No. 4. 3 3. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 5/State would submit that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having the alternate efficacious remedy available under Rule 16.9 of the Rules, 2018 for filing the suit under Section 55 (2) of the Cooperative Socities Act, 1960. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The claim of petitioner is that the order of suspension is passed without following the due procedure of law as provided under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2018. Therefore, in the facts of the case, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107, and in case of Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax & Others Vs. Commercial Steel Limited reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 884), I am of the view that the writ petition can be maintained even if the petitioner is having the alternate efficacious remedy as the order of suspension is passed without following the due process of law according to the submission of the counsel for petitioner. 6. Rule 17 of the Rules, 2018 is extracted below for ready reference:- 17. संቝኋ के के्቞ चारी के निलंब:- 01. ऐसे क्቞चा री क जिसेक विरु्ቍ गंभीरी दुरी चारीण क लिये क ये ही क  रीही ही सेसे येटी क बो्ቑ ቛኋ री वि"णये पा रिरीत करी सेभी गंये सेये&क्त पायेक क पा "&्቞वित से वि"विबोत विकये  सेक गं । ऐसे वि"बो" आदेश लिखि-त रूपा ्቞/ हीगं औरी क्቞चा री क ्ቤሹኌक्तगंत रूपा से ये पाक3 त ्ቑ क ቛኋ री दिदेये  गं । 02. क्቞चा री क वि"बो" अधि7 ्቞/ वि" ही भीቈኔ क रूपा ्቞/ वि"ቐኌ:त त" क आ7 क बोरी बोरी वि"बो" भीቈኔ क अधि7क री हीगं औरी ही विबोभी से्ቌ्቞ अधि7क री क लिखि-त अ"&्቞वित क ्቞&ख्ये ये "ही= छो़ቨगं । वि"बो" अधि7 ्቞/ क्቞चा री क विकसे भी ्ቚक री क छो& ሾኍ "ही= दे  गं ही Bसे ही औरी बो भी कही=  एगं , अपा" अ"&पाሹኌDवित क सेEचा" से्ቌ्቞ अधि7क री क ये उसेक ቛኋ री अधि7क3 त विकसे ्ቤሹኌक्त क देगं । 4 03. वि"बो" अधि7 त" ्቞ ही से अधि7क "ही= हीगं, वि"बो" अधि7 सेचा क ्቞ण््ቑ क अ"&्቞दे" से बो़በ ई  सेकत हीB पारीन्त& येही विस्त रिरीत अधि7 छोL ्቞ ही से अधि7क ्቞ही= हीगं। िሗकNत&  बो अवि" ये रूपा से त" ्቞ ही क भीतरी करी   ये। येदिदे  चा करी" पारी क्቞चा री सेयेत ये पाEणक देषी पा ये  ये त उसे वि"ये्቞ अ"&से री देण््ቑ दिदेये  सेक गं औरी येही वि"बो" अधि7 ्቞/ दिदेये गंये भीቈኔ क छो्ቑकरी अन्ये विकसे भी ्ቚक री क देत" क अधि7क री "ही= हीगं ।.” Rule 17 of the Rules, 2018 talks about the suspension of the employees of the institutions. The employees against whom there is allegation of serious misconduct, after taking prior permission/approval of the Divisional Joint Registrar, the employee can be suspended. When the specific stand is of the petitioner that the aforementioned Rule 17 has not been followed, perusal of the order dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P/1) would show that the prescribed authority has passed an order of suspension. It does not mention about any proceeding as has been provided under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2018 was initiated before passing the order dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P/1). In the aforementioned facts of the case, order of suspension dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is quashed. However, the respondent authorities shall take decision on the period of suspension of the petitioner, expeditiously preferably within a further period of 03 months from the date of receipt of the order. However, Respondent No. 4 will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if he so desires. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY